THE REAL SCANDAL AT THE IRS
The real scandal at the IRS is not that they have been abusing their administrative power to delay and obstruct the formation
of American organizations with "patriot" or "tea-party" or "Constitution" in the name of the organization; or even that the
IRS has obviously become a "State" mechanism through which the "State" can limit and hinder the organization and
appearance of political opposition and philosophical or ideological difference! No, that's been obvious for a while. No,
the real scandal at the IRS is not that they hinder and impede the use of the word "Constitution" in the name of your
organization; it's that the IRS hasn't conducted its tax collection operations under the Constitution in over 60 years!
They don't use the Constitution in anything they do, they literally despise it;, and they dishonor and violate it every
single day. The IRS no longer recognizes either the limits of power established thereunder, nor the extremely limited nature
of the actual holdings of the Supreme Court in its controlling decisions on income tax, nor the extremely limited nature of
the statutory liability for the payment of the income tax that actually exists in the written laws.
Now, everybody knows that the Supreme Court upheld the income tax law it tested in 1916 as being constitutional, as
authorized under the newly enacted 16th Amendment, but, it is extremely important to understand WHY the high court
ruled that way. Because today, the IRS wants you to believe that what the Supreme Court upheld in 1916, is what is being
practiced today by the IRS in its collection operations, and that is a lie. It's just not true, - a bad assumption on your part, if
you will, because while the court did uphold the income tax law they tested in 1916 as being constitutional, they also
rejected certain specific arguments that were made by the government concerning just exactly what taxing powers the
16th Amendment actually authorizes for the government to exercise, and much like Justice Roberts in the Sebelius
healthcare decision in 2011, the court found their own logic and rational in 1916 to uphold the income tax, based on the
specific language of the legislation they were testing, and by giving proper consideration in their analysis to ALL of the
relevant and applicable parts of the Constitution involved and affected.
There are very clear and well delineated limitations explicitly stated within their controlling decisions; where the Court
rejects certain arguments advanced by the government in the case concerning the power to tax income directly and without
apportionment. Today however, those limitations and rejections are completely ignored by the IRS in its fanatical pursuit of
the communistic direct application of the income taxing power. Again, that communistic application of the income taxing
powers, as a direct tax without apportionment, was specifically rejected by the Court in its decisions in 1916. I say
"communistic" because the 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for "a heavy progressive or graduated income
tax", which is precisely what the IRS wants you to subserviently practice today without question. But I assure you, in 1916
the Supreme Court did not uphold that direct and communistic application of the income taxing powers that the IRS imposes
on the American People today under the pretense of the adoption of the 16th Amendment!
So just exactly what did the court hold in 1916, and why is the income tax constitutional when it is so obviously, potentially,
completely destructive of the American system of private property and the People's Right to Work. I would remind the
reader here, that the government is supposed to be prohibited from taxing our Rights, and their exercise, meaning the
government has no legitimate legal power to take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned by Right, or to consume
the hard-earned fruits of our own labors by taxing the People (or labors) directly and without apportionment (per Art. I,
Sec. 2, cl. 3 and Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 4 of the Constitution). The income tax, as enforced by the IRS today plainly violates
these basic rights and fundamental prohibitions. But, what does the law actually provide, and is the IRS actually enforcing
it (the written law), or something else entirely, like the philosophy of the 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto, instead ?
So, first we will briefly examine the controlling Supreme Court decisions, and the court's reasoning in upholding the tax,
and then we will briefly review the written law as it exists. In 1916, in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. case (one of
the Supreme Court’s controlling decisions on income tax), in considering the argument that the income tax legislation being
tested by the Court in that case enacted a direct nonapportioned tax on all income derived from earnings in America by all
persons, the U.S. Supreme Court held: “…it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to,
would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of
the [16th] Amendment exempting a direct tax [on income] from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general
requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. ... This result … would create radical and destructive changes in our
constitutional system and multiply confusion.” Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916).
Clearly, the Brushaber Court rejected here the argued contention that the (then) new income tax was (or is) a direct tax
without apportionment, specifically pointing out that that interpretation and application of the legislation under the
Amendment would have the improper and unacceptable legal effect of using one provision of the Constitution to destroy
another, which “would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system” by improperly using one
law to destroy another, and thereby strip the People of their constitutional protection from tyrannical direct taxation, and
replace it with an omnipotent power granted the "State" to take as much as it wants, from whoever it wants, whenever it
wants. This of course, was unacceptable to the Court then, as it should be now, as it clearly does not constitute a proper
application and use of the law; as it is not legitimate to use one law or clause of the Constitution, to destroy another.
But this is precisely what the IRS argues today, i.e.: that the 16th Amendment destroys the people's protections under, and
provisions of, Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 and Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4, requiring all direct taxes to be apportioned! This is argued so that
the income tax can be collected by the IRS in its daily administration and operation, as though the tax were indeed a
direct tax without apportionment, which is still in actuality, a prohibited application of the income taxing powers.
The clear and unequivocal ruling of the Court in the Brushaber holding is that the Sixteenth Amendment granted no new
powers of taxation to Congress to exercise: "Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in
any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property,
but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such
unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to
apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and
consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise
would not apply to it." Brushaber, supra, at 16-17. So the income tax is an indirect excise.
The Court plainly states here that if the tax were ever to be applied as a direct tax, to the People or their labors, then the
Court would be required to “hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise
would not apply to it”, and prohibit such alleged direct application of the federal tax by the I.R.S. But this is precisely
what the IRS is doing today! And it is how the IRS has operated, for over 60 years, without the called-for Court
intervention requiring the apportionment of the tax. Additionally, in 1916 the Court was clearly able to identify that the
legislation being tested in that Brushaber case provided for the indirect “collection of the tax at the source”, through a
legislatively created and statutorily defined duty, laid on certain identified persons, who, acting as the statutorily defined
"Withholding Agents" (IRC § 7701(a)(16)), have a legislative mandate to “retain and pay the sum of the tax” as federal tax
collectors, who have collected the tax from other persons. The Court's decision plainly states "The act provides for
collecting the tax at the source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax ...
unless the owner to whom the interest is payable gives a notice that he claims an exemption." Brushaber, supra at 21.
The Supreme Court identified in this case that the tested legislation compelled certain persons, who are party to certain
specific transactions, to perform as federal tax collectors within those identified transactions, and withhold money as tax
from the specified payments made to the statutorily identified subject “persons”, who are specifically made subject to the
collection of the tax by the provisions of the statutes, through the withholding of money as tax from their payments. Then,
those federal tax collectors (who withheld the money) are required by law to pay over to the U.S. Treasury those collected
“income” tax funds, because of course, as federal tax collectors, they are made liable in the statutes for the payment to
the U.S. Treasury of the collected tax; just as a store is made liable as a tax collector in the State for the payment of the
sales tax that it has collected from the sales of its products to its customers. Then of course, the tax collector (the "store")
must pay over to the State Treasury the collected sales tax funds. But, the tax paid by the collectors is not paid from their
own pocket or funds, unless they first fail the duty to collect the tax from the subject transactions. Through this shifting
of the burden of the requirement to pay the tax, from the citizen himself to the tax collector (who has the legal duty to
pay over the collected tax, but not any duty to pay tax out of his own pocket or even on his own income) both the income
tax, and the entire scheme of taxation employed by the legislation in laying the tax, are kept indirect, constitutional, and
legitimate, and, as an indirect tax, it is relieved of the constitutional requirement to apportion the tax. But, according to
the Supreme Court in this controlling Brushaber case, any direct application of the income tax to the wage earner,
outside of this approved indirect withholding scheme, would require apportionment in order to be constitutional.
This scheme of implementation for the collection of the tax at the source, of course has the legal effect of making the tax
collector the true “taxpayer” within the taxing scheme and legislation, not the person who earns the income and is
simply paid for his labors by Right (despite the taxability of his earnings). One should also carefully note that under this
indirect taxing scheme the tax is withheld only where it is required by statute to be collected from the statutorily specified
payments and or “persons”, just as a sales tax is only collected by the stores on the sales of certain, statutorily specified
products and goods. The identified legislative requirement to retain (collect) and pay the sum of the (income) tax is still
defined in law today, just as it was in 1913 when the legislation was enacted, and if you're interested you can review that
startlingly limited authority at www.Tax-Freedom.com, or at the law library under IRC §§ 7701(a)(16), 1441, 1442, 1443,
and 1461, but suffice it to say that the Withholding Agent, the federal tax collector of the income tax (enacted in 1913),
is only authorized and required under these defining statutes to deduct and withhold tax from foreign persons. Is
this because the original income tax legislation was enacted as part of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913?
In short, the real scandal at the IRS is that they are now wrongfully enforcing on the American People the practice of
communism, and its repugnant 2nd Plank, in place of properly enforcing the collection of a constitutional indirect income
tax as actually authorized by the Supreme Court under the 16th Amendment in 1916. Much more detailed info available at:
WWW.TAX-FREEDOM.COM